English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Dear Editor, The debate on the ideal positioning of femoral tunnels is an important topic of research in recent times. In this regard, the articleby Peres et al is very important, because it evaluates and compares the inclination angles and femoral tunnel lengths between two commonly used techniques of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.1Wefound that they havemade a very good comparison between the transtibial and the transportal techniques. They have used the coronal plane inclination angle and the femoral tunnel length as variables for comparison between the two techniques. In this study, the authors have compared the femoral tunnel lengths in the coronal plane using a computed tomography (CT) based evaluation. This method of estimation of femoral length has serious flaws, as they are measuring the length in the coronal plane, while the tunnel is drilled at an angle starting posteriorly and ending anteriorly. This has been explained by providing examples from cases performed in our institute. ►Fig. 1 shows two coronal images of the same patient, in whom the femoral tunnel has been drilled using transportal technique. The CT scan was performed 1week after the surgery. The coronal cuts are taken at different depths from the anterior femoral articular surface. As can be clearly seen, there can be a significant difference in the measurement of femoral tunnel lengths at different positions from the anterior surface. The reason for this difference is that the tunnel is not drilled parallel to the coronal axis. Rather, it is drilled at an anteroposterior angle, with the entry point being more posterior than the exit point. We recommend that the femoral tunnel length can be best measured in axial plane CT scans using curved reformats, as shown in ►Fig. 2. Curved reformatting allows us to visualize the entire tunnel in its length and provides accurate length. A similar method of calculating the femoral tunnel length has been used by Sim et al in their article comparing two techniques of femoral tunnel preparation.2 Excluding this error, we find that the article provides valuable information about the femoral tunnel placement in both techniques.

Comentários sobre o artigo “Avaliação radiológica do posicionamento do túnel femoral na reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior”